Top Posters
Since Sunday
17
9
d
7
o
6
j
6
n
5
d
5
r
5
H
5
c
5
l
5
i
5
New Topic  
rsteel rsteel
wrote...
Posts: 61
Rep: 0 0
3 weeks ago
Each of the following situations involves a possible violation of the rule on independence. For each situation, (1) decide whether the Code of Professional Conduct has been violated, and (2) briefly explain how the situation violates (or does not violate) the Code of Professional Conduct.

a. Harry Brown is a partner in the Topeka office of Hedley & Co., CPAs. Harry's brother is employed in an audit-sensitive position by Jensen Appliances, a publicly held company in Kansas. Jensen Appliances is one of Hedley & Co.'s audit clients. Neither Harry nor personnel from the Topeka office is involved in the audit of Jensen.

Violation? Yes No
Explanation:

b. John Woods is an audit manager with Calden & Co., CPAs, a one-office CPA firm. John owns 100 shares of common stock in one of the firm's audit clients, but he does not provide any audit or non-audit services to the company.

Violation? Yes No
Explanation:

c. The accounting firm of Fine & Herman, CPAs, provides bookkeeping and tax services for Henderson Corporation, a privately held company. Fine & Herman also performs the annual audit of Henderson Corporation.

Violation? Yes No
Explanation:

d. Bob Shelton, CPA, is the auditor of Cafe Ecko. A couple of weeks ago, Cafe Ecko's management commenced litigation against Bob, alleging he was negligent in last year's audit. 

Violation? Yes No
Explanation:

e. Hamilton Appliance has not paid Karen Linwood, CPA, her audit fee for the past two years. Karen is starting work on the current year's audit of Hamilton.

Violation? Yes No
Explanation:
Textbook 

Auditing and Assurance Services


Edition: 17th
Authors:
Read 5 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
ricyoungricyoung
wrote...
Posts: 25
Rep: 0 0
3 weeks ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
More questions for this book are available here
a. No violation. Although partners in a CPA firm are not allowed to have close relatives employed in a position of significant influence by a client, it is acceptable to have a close relative employed in an audit sensitive position (with no significant influence), as long as the partner does not participate in the engagement and is not in an office that participates on the engagement.

b. No violation. John is not a covered member with respect to the audit client as he has no responsibility for the engagement and is not in a position to influence the engagement. 

c. No violation. The AICPA does not prohibit CPA firms from providing bookkeeping, tax, and audit services to the same nonpublic client.

d. Violation. When there is a lawsuit or intent to start a lawsuit between a CPA and an audit client's management related to audit services, independence is impaired.

e. Violation. Independence is impaired if fees remain unpaid for services provided more than one year prior to the date of the report.

This verified answer contains over 180 words.
1

Related Topics

wrote...
Posts: 61
Credits: 10

3 weeks ago
Thanks
wrote...
Posts: 73
Credits: 40

Yesterday
Helped a lot
wrote...
Posts: 70
Credits: 40

2 hours ago
Good timing, thanks!
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  84 People Browsing
Related Images
 502
 50
 60
Your Opinion
What's your favorite funny biology word?
Votes: 60

Previous poll results: What's your favorite math subject?